Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HMS Richmond helicopter crash

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. The subject has attracted sufficient coverage to write a substantial article about it, so on the face of it meets WP:GNG. Debate is therefore about the limits of this, which comes down to whether WP:NOT applies. Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS neither the existence nor the non-existence of similar articles is a factor. There is no consensus on the limits of notability, nor for a broader reading of WP:NOT. There is therefore no consensus to delete. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Richmond helicopter crash

[edit]
HMS Richmond helicopter crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:GNG military crashes are generally not notable as they are an operational hazard in a high risk environment. There were no lasting effects to procedures or the aircraft and there were no notable people onboard Petebutt (talk) 05:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as the spokesperson said - "as far as we are aware, there is no issue of safety with the Lynx or indication about defects which could be proven in other aircraft". No impact on the industry or even that line of aircraft in the context of that service. Tragic, but it fails WP:EVENT. St★lwart111 07:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable, as the nominator would have seen had they done due diligence and Googled it. And even if that weren't so, the Royal Navy's first loss of a female pilot (an aspect which generated significant media attention, again, due diligence...) is clearly significant. It's nominations like these that give the deletion process a bad name. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEFORE is important, but the WP:BURDEN is on the article creator. The coverage in this instance is almost entirely from the immediate aftermath of the crash. It's news coverage but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. For an event to be considered notable enough for inclusion there needs to have been a longer-term impact than "helicopter crashed, people died" news coverage. The naming of a locomotive (12 years later) isn't the sort of lasting impact that substantiates a pass per WP:EFFECT as far as I'm concerned. St★lwart111 13:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Loathe though I am to get into a lengthy tit-for-tat which is only likely to lead to ill felling and contribute little to the debate, I will respond this once. BEFORE is indeed important and is far too often neglected, as it clearly was in this case; it seems to me that the only way to discourage these drive-by nominations is to summarily close them if BEFORE wasn't followed. Your "NOTNEWS" argument is absurd; that policy was not written to exclude articles about events that have been in the news or that are based mainly on news coverage. Now, if the only coverage was from the immediate aftermath, you might have a point, but there is detailed coverage from a year later, it's significant enough to be discussed in a feature about the organisation that salvaged the aircraft, and the locomotive naming attracted lots of coverage, much of which (even the railway-specific publications!) discussed the accident itself in considerable detail. And there are plenty more potential sources that aren't in the article—I just took what I needed to get the facts in and demonstrate notability. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And clearly fails WP:NOTNEWS. St★lwart111 13:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Numerous sources show notability - not just a standard crash incident. Bazonka (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly passes as notable based on coverage and the posthumous dedication to Lewis. There is a need to have articles about female fatalities in the services and notable female servicemen in general. Smirkybec (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per HJ Mitchell et al. GNG is clearly met. Also, one of the victims (whose name redirects to the article in question) has had a locomotive named in her honour; further evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Generally military crashes are not considered unique enough to be featured on this site. However, as Harry writes above, there is clear evidence of lasting notability, which not only comes from the features a year later, but also from the naming of a locomotive. Besides that, there are also multiple sources on the internet discussing this crash. Granted, that is normal in a military crash when everyone and their brother reports on it, but it does help this article in that there are still sources occurring after the fact. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GNG is easily met, plus the aspect of it being the Royal Navy's first loss of a female pilot means that this topic is clearly notable. (As an aside, I find the topics related to trailblazing women interesting reading like many people do, and would expect to see the details about the first military death of a female pilot in Wikipedia.) Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per HJ Mitchell's well-stated explanation. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a notable event that has a fair amount of coverage. User:Stalwart111, by simply repeating "Not news" I don't think you're doing your argument any favours. But, to respond to that particular critique I will address the four criteria listed at that policy:
  1. Journalism. This point states that "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories" - clearly this is not a point of contention here as the story is a decade old.
  2. News Reports. This point states that "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This is not a routine event or part of an ongoing series. It is a one-off event that received ongoing interest. I presume you're not going to list other articles in Category:Accidents and incidents involving Royal Air Force aircraft for deletion on the basis of "not news"?
  3. Who's Who. This point states "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." This article focuses on the crash, its impact and subsequent events tied to that incident. The sections focusing on the (otherwise non-notable) person is to point out her uniqueness in the context of the event, not to attempt to claim that she is notable by Wikipedia's standards.
  4. A Diary. This point states "Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are." As mentioned in point 3 - we are clear that it is the event that is the important thing, not the individual who happened to be involved, so this is not a concern here.
Wittylama 15:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How ridiculous. You've left out the only part we all know I was referring to - "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." I remain of the view that a recap 12 months later and a train-naming 12 years later do not substantiate an "enduring notability". We all know why we're here - if this had happened anywhere else (except maybe the United States) we wouldn't dream of having an article about it. Keep the Anglo-centric dream alive! St★lwart111 22:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I resent that allegation, and I resent your tone, Stalwart111. I respect your opinion, and I respect you for stating it, but please keep your comments confined to the suitability or otherwise of the article rather than attacking the motives of other editors commenting here. Comments like "it's notable because one of the victims was a woman? That's a new one", "Rule Britania! (we all know why we're here)", and " Keep the Anglo-centric dream alive!" are not helpful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an allegation directed at you. I happen to think you created an article about a non-notable subject - that's a matter for debate and we should have one. But this AFD has had more attention in its first 24 hours than most get in a week and the location of those who have rushed to defend it (some on blatantly non-policy grounds like "keep; a woman was involved") speaks for itself. When some simply cannot find a policy-based reason for keeping something and resort to disingenuous paraphrasing of policy and entirely-non-policy arguments, I think we're entitled to question motives. St★lwart111 23:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 21:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 21:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 21:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 21:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'll leave these here for you to consider - as far as I can see, not a single one of them has an article here. That's not an attempt at an "other stuff" argument; these are directly relevant and specifically similar incidents that have happened elsewhere that we don't cover and won't cover because those who died didn't know the words to "Rule, Britannia!":
In fact, as one of those articles points out, General Hok Lundy died in a military helicopter crash in 2008 and we haven't bothered to cover that either. The systematic geo-centric bias is alive and kicking over here at English WP. Wanna keep this? Go for it - I've said my bit. Just frustrating. St★lwart111 23:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're actually making a good case for having articles of those topics and ensuring WP avoids systemic bias. Agree with you.--Oakshade (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Our definition of military air crashes and notability is a bit weird, so I think this would be worth bringing up in other areas as well. To be fair, I have had a helicopter and multiple air crash articles deleted, which I think is a bad approach since there are multiple reasons major air crashes in both the private and military sector should be covered. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get into a lengthy discussion of "other stuff doesn't have an article", but just by way of example, in a quick search I found 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 British military helicopter crashes that don't have articles. You won't find me arguing that systemic bias is not a problem, but that doesn't mean that nothing that happens in well-covered parts of the world is notable. I would argue that at least one or two of your examples should probably have articles as well—I would certainly expect there would be enough for an article on a helicopter crash that killed 16 people, for example. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reading it, and all of the above, an article on this accident is wholly unwarranted from a notability/lasting impact standpoint, for a number of reasons:
1. The first link to "detailed coverage from a year later" is in fact just routine news reporting of the inquest - as happens for all other accidents of this nature (such as the recent Norfolk US military helicopter crash, whose Wikipedia article was deleted precisely because the accident was not notable).
2. The second link to discussion about the accident in a subsequent feature, is in reality actually the MoD's house magazine talking about the activities of a branch of the MoD, in which the operation is name-checked in a run down of previous salvages, namely because of the depth. Clearly this can't be taken as evidence of notability of the accident (which is odd, as I would have said being the deepest MoD salvage operation up to that date was arguably the most notable thing about this accident, from an encyclopedic point of view, but if independent news coverage is the test of such things, it clearly fails).
3. Outside of those two links, the claimed existence of "considerable detail" in coverage well after the event, outside of the routine inquest report and the MoD feature, doesn't actually seem to exist. Or at least I can't find it (and I've spent some time searching now, in order to substantiate some of the stuff I've said below). If it gets a mention at all, it's simply of the sort of 'call-back' nature which is standard practice - such as when the Guardian reported on a Lynx crash in 2004 [1], it's given a single sentence - "In 2002 a Lynx crashed when one of its engines exploded as it returned to the frigate HMS Richmond after an exercise off the east coast of the US.". That's the sort of standard call-back I'm talking about - otherwise known as entirely routine, bog-standard news fare. The way I read the guidelines, in depth coverage of an event this long ago should really now be coverage in actual books or documentaries. The way the internet coverage of this is looking 12 years on, I doubt this has appeared in any significant detail in any book, except perhaps one solely dedicated to the Lynx, and of course any such book would be full of detail on many incidents not considered noteworthy enough for Wikipedia.
4. Trains get named in Britain for all sorts of things, it's what we do. We love trains, and therefore, it's not all that hard to get the press to cover a train naming in Britain, even when it's entirely trivial, such as this. Add to that, the dedication is by a heritage railway, so it holds much less significance than it otherwise would - the decision was made by just one person, the locomotive owner. Even on the national network, trains can be named after people who died in accidents which will never have Wikipedia articles - unless someone can find a Wikipedia article relating to the girl named Sophie or the train driver mentioned in this article? On its own, it's simply not a reliable indication of lasting significance. Indeed, in this particular case, it seems that the decision to dedicate the train after her had as much to do with the fact she was a train enthusiast and she was a native of Dorset (the location of the railway), than anything to do with the crash itself (or even the fact she was the first female RN pilot to die). The BBC article about the naming actually doesn't even mention the first female aspect, yet it goes into detail about the fact the Class 33 was chosen because she was a fan of it.
5. The death of the first female in any occupation is in fact not a notable event in encyclopedic terms (you won't for example, find any kind of 'first female fatalities in X list'), it's simply a statistical inevitability once that occupation starts admitting females. The people who are advocating its importance here, are actually probably just causing offence to the relatives of the male fatality, by somehow suggesting his death is less important. You don't mark the contributions of the female gender this way, you mark them by documenting actual achievements, such as the name and date of appointment of the first female pilot in the Royal Navy (details which are conspicuously absent from this article, which is hard to reconcile if the gender aspect is the thing that makes this accident notable)
6. Having had a look around, this article is a stand-out oddity among the rest of the coverage on such crashes. It looks to be an oddity amongst Category:Accidents and incidents involving military aircraft, all of which seem to have far better claims to lasting notability (I'm not even seeing any other Lynx crashes in there). It also stands out in the Westland Lynx article, being the only mention of a crash which has a linked article, although ironically not mentioning the reason why (in fact not even mentioning at all that it was even a fatal accident). Very odd, given the next few lines are dedicated to detailing a crash which killed 5 in Iraq, yet no article. Even more odd when the reader realises that an even more fatal crash which occurred in between those two isn't even mentioned at all. As of 2004, there were apparently 15 fatalities apparently attributed to the Lynx. Is it really sustainable to portray this accident as the only one that was notable enough for an article? Clearly the relative press coverage of each is not going to bear that out - the crash in the Falklands would have got significant coverage at the time, surely, and I'm guessing it wouldn't be too hard to find call-backs and coverage of subsequent memorials/dedications either.
7. You would surely expect that any article on an aviation accident would be able to give the cause of the accident, or otherwise definitively state the cause is officially not known (one of the two must be the case after this length of time). Yet I don't see either in here, which leads me to believe that covering the accident isn't the reason for this article at all - it's the death of (just one) of the two people aboard (or indeed the train dedication). Which rather begs the question, would the article Death of Lieutenant Jenny Lewis really survive the test of time, as a stand-alone Wikipedia article? I think not. And I certainly don't think there will ever be an article on the individual locomotive, either. Yet these appear to be the two planks on which this article was created. The more I look at it, the more this article looks to be more about memorialising just one (of two) fatalities in an otherwise unremarkable accident, rather than detailing the actual accident and its cause. I certainly think it's safe to say this is never going to appear in the TV media, which I had until now assumed had covered every single unsolved air accident in history, certainly the ones like this where there's a double engine failure after one of them exploded (rather crucial facts conspicuously absent from what is supposed to be an article about the accident).
It doesn't seem to me that this article is ever going to be any more than an aggregation of what the newspapers said at the time, plus a place to document the first female aspect and the train dedication. The former is not a sufficient foundation for an aircrash article, and the latter could just as easily be documented as part of other relevant articles, such as the ship and railway. And obviously, as far as any potential gender studies readers go, the article is next to useless, beyond simply confirming what you likely already knew when you came here. And it will likely remain so even after the achievement side of the topic is fully fleshed out (there isn't even a biography here yet for the first female pilot in *any* branch of UKAF, let alone the RN (it's Flight Lieutenant Julie Ann Gibson if the British Armed Forces article is to be believed). Patrol forty (talk) 05:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC) — Patrol forty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Thank you for your extensive and thoroughly thought out contribution Patrol forty. As a side-point to this deletion debate, find it odd that this long comment - which shows a strong understanding of Wikipedia policies and processes - is your first and only edit on any wiki, and that you registered for an account only a few hours beforehand[2]. This does not diminish the points you are making or give them any less weight, it is just highly unusual. Wittylama 09:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A breath of fresh air from the it was in the news so must have an article brigade. Thanks Patrol Forty--Petebutt (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Patrol forty (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As this long analysis based on interpretation of advanced Wikipedia guidelines knowledge on your one and only edit, can you please tell us who's account this is a sock puppet of?--Oakshade (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking closely at the British-centric comparisons, language and comparison to other arguments, it won't be too hard to figure this out.--Oakshade (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure what is so advanced about what I said. I'm pretty sure notability is a bog standard concept here, and it's not like it's hard to understand - neither is the requirement for accident articles like this to demonstrate a lasting impact beyond timely news coverage (all of this was directly referenced in here). For sure I'm not a Wikipedia novice, I make minor edits and browse various topics in this field (otherwise how would I have known about the Norfolk crash?), but until today I'd never registered. I thought it only prudent to do so if I intended to make a long comment (although admittedly when I started, it was going to be a tenth of that length, I guess I'm a bit of a windbag). I guess to regulars here I suppose it is highly unusual that people might research the relevant Wikipedia rules before making a comment about a deletion, but I had rather hoped that the detail of my comment showed that I'm not the sort of person who does that - if I want to comment about something, I make sure I know what I'm talking about first by doing some research.
If you felt threatened by my comment Oakshade, I apologise. After all, it must be embarrassing if you consider yourself to be an expert on these supposedly advanced Wikipedia concepts, for some punk ass novice like me to come along and point out that referencing "per all above" was probably not a wise idea if you hadn't actually bothered to look closely at what had been said and linked to, as supposed evidence of in depth coverage long after the event. Or do you disagree with the substance of my argument? Is news reporting of an inquest, and an in house feature on the MoD about the MoD, actually evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (GNG) well after the event? In your expert eyes? Or maybe you know something about heritage railways that I don't? At the end of the day, I don't participate in Wikipedia in depth, because it seems to be a bit of a waste of time (I prefer to be paid for performing this sort of detailed analysis). I chose to comment here simply because I was just shocked that some very basic points of fact had apparently been completely missed by everybody arguing to keep it.
From where I'm standing, the basic facts are pretty clear to anyone, experts or no expert - 1. despite the claims to the contrary, it doesn't appear to have had any kind of detailed coverage after the event (even the MoD coverage isn't detailed), 2. being the first female to die in any particular occupation is certainly not some kind of notable achievement (not in the sense that it makes the cause of the death, i.e. the accident, inherently worthy of detailed coverage in Wikipedia, while other more significant crashes of the same helicopter 'in service' apparently do not), 3. a heritage railway posthumously naming a locomotive after someone who dies in an accident, is not remotely indicative of inherent notability for the accident - especially not when sources like the BBC don't even bother to mention what some people here seem to think makes this accident more notable than any of the several other Lynx crashes (with far higher fatality rates), and especially not when they give the precise reasons why that particular railway would choose to honour that particular person, reasons that had entirely nothing to do with either the accident or her gender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrol forty (talk • contribs)
Whether Patrol forty is a sockpuppet or not, they've clearly put considerable effort into drafting that rationale so I feel it's worth the effort to address it. I'm not going to write a point-by-point rebuttal, but I will say this:
  • This crash appears to have attracted more coverage than most of its type (I gave examples above of several other crashes, of which none except possibly one had the same level of coverage; indeed, I searched for "Royal Navy helicopter crash" and this particular crash seemed to dominate the results, even though there have been several more recent crashes. There may be several reasons for that, but the reason somebody decides to cover an incident is irrelevant—the standard is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources; regardless of the reasons for the coverage, the coverage exists.
  • My motives for creating the article are irrelevant.
  • Comparisons with other crashes are relevant to a point, but the lack of existence of an article on another crash is not a reason to delete this one. Indeed, I would argue that several (though not all) of the examples mentioned in this discussion, ought to have articles and that Patrol forty's example, 2014 Norfolk helicopter crash, was created prematurely and its deletion was far too hasty (the tone of that article was very much like a newspaper article in all fairness, but the topic itself is probably notable).
  • Specific notability guidelines are all well and good, but they exist to provide examples of subjects likely to meet the GNG, not to usurp the GNG; failing the criteria in an SNG does not mean that a subject does not meet the GNG.
  • The article is not finished. I'm currently trying to acquire more sources with which I hope to expand the article and include some of the missing details. But incompleteness is not a reason to delete something, it's a reason to keep working on it (though the red tag at the top of the article is wonderful for deterring editors!).
  • Finally, although somebody will doubtless point me to WP:NOHARM, I would ask what Wikipedia would gain from deleting this article. It's not a two-line stub that tells the reader nothing they couldn't have guessed from the title. It's nearly 500 words long and every single fact can be traced back to one of the reliable, independent sources cited in it. Its content complies fully with Wikipedia's core policies. In my (admittedly biased) opinion, it is a useful, informative encyclopaedia article and deleting it would leave a noticeable gap in Wikipedia's coverage. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no difference in coverage that I can see, not if comparing fatal Lynx crashes. The Guardian story about the 2004 crash I linked to is as in depth and detailed as anything currently in this article. Even the MoD feature you claimed proved this crash was significant, devoted about the same number of words to that crash (both being pretty brief 'call-back' style mentions). And I don't see that changing any time soon, no matter how hard you look. The news coverage of all of these fatal Lynx crashes is pretty obviously good enough to write similar articles for all of them - they will all do what this one does. They would all be as useful and informative as this one is.
Except of course, this one still doesn't even say what the cause was (or definitively say it's not known). Surely if you'd been looking, you'd have at least found that by now, if the coverage of this crash is at the level you claim. I think your thought process is relevant if, as it seems to me, you didn't take into account how Wikipedia deals with similar crashes at all. I think it's also relevant if you can only answer my very detailed critique of why this specific article clearly isn't worthy, in the most general of terms (and contradictory ones at that - it can exist both because others could, and in spite of that). I would have thought any reply from you would have actually provided some evidence to back up the claims made about significant and detailed coverage well after the event, instead of effectively just repeating the claim.
As for what harm this article does, well, I already mentioned the possible offence to the male crew member's relatives (or indeed any relative of any of the deaths in other Lynx crashes) by the inference that, as males, the circumstances of their deaths were not as important as this one. Similarly, there's the reputational damage in Wikipedia even having articles on air crashes which don't even include the most basic of details, like the cause. I suspect you will eventually find a source for the cause, but I'm thinking you're probably going to have to look pretty hard, and will probably only find it in the actual investigation report. Which is all just more proof that, whatever this article is here for, it isn't to summarise the contents of the "significant" and "detailed" coverage it has got in secondary sources over the 12 years since (I'm assuming the investigation isn't just sitting somewhere on a shelf, still officially 'open').
I've just had a stab at re-arranging the article and adding a little bit, and I was struck by how much of it was just lifted directly from the news reports - very little has been left out. There's clearly been no attempt here to summarise anything from a historical perspective, which is after all the purpose of an encyclopedia. It's just an aggregation of the news reports of the time. So it's hard to deny that this fails the basic Wikipedia rule, that Wikipedia isn't a news site. Even though it was written a long time after, whole chunks of it look exactly as they would have if it had been written in real time, just like the Norfolk article did.
Perhaps worst of all, even if we are to accept the flawed premise that this article is justified because the crash was the cause of the first female RN pilot/observer death in service (which is a pretty narrow criteria anyway - is being a female aircraft gunner/loader not just as dangerous?), it should be noted that this claim is prefaced by "believed to be" - that's what the Navy said at the time, and its been dutifully repeated here. But if this is an important and notable thing, surely in all that ongoing coverage, this detail would have been confirmed by now? Another good reason to disbelieve the claims this was a notable accident of lasting impact/legacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrol forty (talk • contribs) 03:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The topic has considerable coverage in independent reliable sources, therefore it is clearly notable per WP:GNG. So the only question is whether WP:NOT applies. Since the preface to that policy at WP:NOTEVERYTHING states The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive, it is obvious we can never eliminate all of the exclusions possible under this policy. In other words, WP:NOT can only be used to tell us what articles should not exist, because we cannot exhaust an indefinitely sized list to show that the policy does not apply. What we have to do to counter an argument such as WP:NOTNEWS is to examine whether the topic meets our understanding of 'encyclopedic' content. I believe that this event is encyclopedic, because it has persistent coverage and has sources relating extra aspects of the incident - principally the "first woman", "deepest salvage operation" and "locomotive dedication". Although any of those three factors are not likely to be notable per se, that's not what we're considering: we're examining whether this is more than a single event that received topical news coverage and then disappeared from public notice. From the sources, it is abundantly clear that this is not the case, and it follows that the article as written contains sufficient interest above a mundane accident report for us to consider the topic encyclopedic. I am in no doubt that it should be kept. --RexxS (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't even say what the accident report concluded. Does that really meet your understanding of what would be an encyclopedic recounting of an air accident that happened 12 years ago? Similarly, is it encyclopoedic to be not so sure whether or not she was the first woman? The reason why both of these things are still not in the article, is precisely because there has been no persistent coverage that meets the Wikipedia requirement of being significant and independent. These details clearly cannot be found in a quick Google search, so someone is presumably going to have to do some pretty serious research if they want these issues resolved.
With that in mind, the reality is, whatever people keep trying to claim here without any evidence whatsoever, this accident (which is after all the subject of the article), *has* effectively disappeared from public notice. If we're discounting the (entirely routine and expected) news coverage of the inquest, and the (non-independent) brief mention in the MoD magazine (which wasn't even about the accident), what else is there? The BBC story on the train naming. That's it, as far as I can see. And if that shows anything at all as far as persistence goes, it's that Lt. Lewis herself is the topic which should be the subject of an article here - it's obviously her as a person (as in her name, residence and interest in trains) that hasn't been forgotten, not the accident that caused her death (and more on that below). That BBC article doesn't even mention the 'first women' issue.
It's only Wikipedia that's trying to manufacture a lasting interest in the accident by combining these three quite disparate factoids of first female, depth and train naming, into some kind of whole that's bigger than it's parts. It's the sources that make that abundantly clear - what's the first Google result for "first female royal navy pilot to die in service" (no quotes)? This article. What's the second result? A topical news story on the crash and (ongoing) investigation. That's it. All the rest are completely irrelevant. What's the first Google result for "deepest royal navy salvage operation 2002"? (no quotes). This article. The next 6 are totally irrelevant. Then comes the MoD feature, which is neither independent or significant.
Googling "Train dedicated Lynx" was equally revealing, but for different reasons - I found a local news report [3] (which was simply just a rehash of the railway's own press release [4]). Note that in both of these pieces, the accident is described in a single sentence - there's more detail in there about the locomotive itself! And yes, also note that the gender aspect is completely ignored (except to note she was one of the first female RN helicopter crew, which backs up what I said about what the right way is to properly mark the role of women in the military, by marking their achievements, not the statistical inevitably of the first time one of them dies).
This piece also shed even more light on the true nature of this dedication - "As a tribute to his daughter, Jenny's father Chris Lewis – who lives in Broadstone in Dorset – became a major shareholder in the 71A Locomotive Group to help pay for the major overhaul of No. D6515". The train dedication/flypast was nothing more than the entirely understandable act of a loving father choosing to honour the short life of his daughter in a way that was closely associated with her leisure time interests, and the entirely understandable act of former colleagues marking the untimely death of one of their own. What any of that has to do with an encyclopedia aside from a footnote in the railway/train articles, is frankly beyond me.
There is in fact absolutely nothing in the sources to support the idea that this particular crash, or the fact it marked the death of the first female RN pilot/observer in service, has had any kind of lasting legacy on the public consciousness. Certainly not through a decision of an independent body to do something to mark/remember those things. And I think, absent any actual new facts, it's obvious there was nothing about the accident that was notable as far as aviation safety/military operations goes. It's odd (to me at least) that the depth issue hasn't been 'remembered' by third parties, but absent any actual proof to the contrary, nobody here can say that it hasn't been forgotten.
I apologise for yet again writing an essay when I simply intended to write a paragraph, but the realities are clear, and only get clearer with every new search - this was a crash which has been forgotten by independent sources outside of routine news reporting, despite having had two interesting details to it beyond the ordinary for such things (depth, gender 'milestone'). This was a death that has been remembered, but not by anyone independent, and arguably not for any reason related to the crash (except for the obvious, that it was the cause of the death). If Wikipedia chooses to remember those things when the rest of the world does not do that, that's obviously a mistake, because you're simply acting as a news archive service, in violation of your own rules.
I frankly do not see what anyone thinks Wikipedia is achieving as an encyclopedia, by keeping this article. If I want to know what the news reports said about the crash at the time, I don't need Wikipedia for that. If I want to know what the MoD itself thinks were its more memorable salvage operations, I don't need Wikipedia to tell me. And if I really wanted to know who the first female RN helicopter pilot/observer to die in service (including exercises) was (typing it out as a query only shows just how unrealistic it is to think anyone except those directly involved would actually be searching for that sort of information), then clearly I am no better of coming to Wikipedia than if I consulted the original news reports - they say exactly the same thing, with neither being certain at all.
And if I want to know why locomotive D6515 is named Jenny Lewis (arguably a more realistic prospect than either the gender or depth aspects), I would actually rather not be misled by Wikipedia into believing that this was a commemorative act made independently as some kind of public act of remembrance of a notable event in the history of naval aviation / female service personnel. Rather than deceiving me, or wasting my time by having me read an incomplete article which simply recounts the original news reporting of the accident/inquest, I would actually prefer to go to a source like the railway itself or the topical news of the ceremony, which gives the real reason why the locomotive was named, and is clear that it was not an independent act of commemoration, and actually had next to nothing to do with the crash, and by extension its Wikipedia claimed place in the history of naval aviation / female service personnel.
It's quite damning actually that, with a single sentence, a press release by a heritage railway 12 years later, almost matches this Wikipedia article as far as usefulness to a reader in summarising what actually happened in the accident, from a historical perspective. The only details in the article that are not in that sentence, are pulled from the minutia relayed by the topical news reporting of the time. All dutifully repeated here, without any historical context at all. At least they both agree on one thing - either the cause of the engine failure isn't known, or it was ultimately unimportant. But only the heritage railway seems to be speaking authoritatively on that - a reader of this article probably wouldn't notice if this article simply repeated what's in 6 of the 8 references, namely that the "investigation is ongoing". They would possibly assume, as I initially did, that the whole thing had been written at the time of the crash, and then nobody had updated it, except to add the detail about the train. Patrol forty (talk) 06:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although actually, I've just noticed the railway source does actually make a definitive statement on the gender issue - she was the "first United Kingdom naval servicewoman to lose her life while on operational duty." I missed it because they tacked it onto the end of a paragraph talking about the precise timing of the flypast, which I just skimmed. As this appears to have been directly copied by the Western Gazette from the railway press release, I leave it to others to decide if this can be taken as proof enough for Wikipedia, or whether more confirmation would be needed - seeing as it would also appear to be a widening of the significance ('naval servicewomen' obviously being a larger group than just helo pilot/observers). Patrol forty (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried a few combinations, and I can only find this being reported by a few local newspapers, all at the same time off the back of the railway press release. So purely from a personal point of view, I'd be very wary of taking it as a proven fact. And FWIW, "Jenny Lewis" doesn't appear anywhere on www.royalnavy.mod.uk, which seems strange to me, if she really was the first RN member to die while on operations. Patrol forty (talk) 07:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sad that it is but flying military helicopters is a risky business and accidents happen, this just happens to be one of them, nothing in the article stands out as being particulary notable and the accident is covered in the squadron article. I can see an interest in first female something as being notable but sad as it is being the first female fleet air arm observer is just one of hundreds of military jobs that females do, female x job x country x air force/navy/army/marines would start to be tedious. If I could see evidence that she was the first female helicopter observer or aircrew member in the world to die in an aircraft accident then that may be different but none of the sources make that claim. That leaves a mention in the squadron or fleet air arm article (although they dont mention the first male losses in different roles) but not a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP does not in any way ban topics because they were broadly covered in the news media. The "significant coverage" that WP:GNG requires does not exclude "news media." It is not "routine" for there to be detailed significant coverage a year after an event. WP:ROUTINE defines such coverage such as "announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" which of course the coverage of this topic is nothing of a sort. --Oakshade (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oakshade, your first two sentences don't appear to relate to anything The Bushranger actually said. Could you perhaps rephrase your reply to answer his actual concerns? And indeed, make some attempt to respond to mine? Such as clarifying which sources you're referring to, when you claim there has been significant coverage after the event? Because there's only three of them in the article, and they all have problems, if they're to be considered either detailed, independent, or non-routine.
The news report of the coroners inquest for example, that seems to me to fit the Wikipedia definition of routine - it's the sort of follow up reporting that every fatal aircrash gets in the UK, certainly military ones - Here is a 2009 news report of the inquest into the 2004 crash mentioned earlier (which has no Wikipedia article). Wikipedia obviously doesn't count this sort of ongoing coverage as non-routine in this topic area, otherwise there'd be an article here on every single fatal aircrash, like the recent Norfolk one, and certainly every other fatal Lynx crash, and there appears to have been quite a few. The MoD feature isn't independent, and it wasn't detailed, just a simple recap. That only leaves the reporting of the train naming ceremony, which also only recounted the crash in a single sentence - reflecting the reality that the actual crash, the subject of this article, was of marginal/tangential significance to the decision to name the train (except of course, in being the actual cause of her death).
I think it's even a stretch to call the news coverage of this accident at the time as broad - I think that any fatal military air crash would generate just as much journalistic effort and column inches as this one apparently did, yet only a fraction of those are considered notable enough for Wikipedia. Indeed, you can see that for yourselves by looking at the back-links in that 2009 report on the inquest of the 2004 crash. And it bears repeating, I don't think anyone can ever justifiably say this accident received broad or ongoing coverage in the news, when it has apparently not covered what the accident investigation concluded. Even though the conclusion for the 2004 crash was inconclusive, that fact actually made it into the news, yet this one hasn't. Patrol forty (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My comments were directly responding to what the The Bushranger actually said - "being broadly covered in the news media is not sufficient to confer notability" and his mention of WP:ROUTINE. He didn't actually mention WP:GNG, but he did claim non-notability. GNG stands for "General Notability Guideline" and WP:GNG is the primary gauge of notability on WP. If you'd like to change WP:ROUTINE to be defined as beyond the scope of "announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism," you're free to make your case on that guideline's talk page. But now that you responded, I will also add that WP:NOTMEMORIAL certainly doesn't apply as that is meant for topics that have not received significant independent coverage from reliable sources as this topic has, ie someone's beloved uncle, or as WP:NOTMEMORIAL states, "deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances." --Oakshade (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments were completely at odds with what he said - at no point did he even come close to saying Wikipedia "bans" topics that were broadly covered in the news media, or that the measure of notability in Wikipedia "excludes" news media. He also didn't say that it "wasn't routine for there to be detailed significant coverage a year after an event". He was specifically pointing out the lack of non-routine follow-up about this crash as the reason why it's not notable. So in that light, your response made no sense at all, except to imply he hadn't even read ROUTINE. I rather think he, like me, thinks it would be entirely wrong to presume the intent of ROUTINE is to define non-routine as everything that's not "announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism." As for WP:MEMORIAL, I guess it depends on whether or not the lack of a title like Death of Lieutenant Jenny Lewis means that the deceased is not the intended subject of the article. The focus on her and the train, to the detriment of the other fatality or indeed properly covering the crash the way an encyclopedia would, rather suggests she is, albeit obliquely, and perhaps only because of her gender, rather than her person. Patrol forty (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the time you seem to have and I'm not paid for this so I'm not going to be as extensive as you. I'd rather spend my time contributing, like creating articles (I created 2 in the last 24 hours) and improving existing ones. He typed "In this day and age of instant media, being broadly covered in the news media is not sufficient to confer notability, and even later news hits need to be beyond WP:ROUTINE follow-up coverage to be persistent." Besides a second sentence about WP:NOTMEMORIAL, he didn't say anything else. The primary basis to confer notably is in our General Notability Guideline in which significant coverage ("broadly covered") by reliable sources ("the media") confers notability ("not sufficient to confer notability") which of course is opposite of WP:GNG - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Now I want to see longest reply ever. I have a life, I will have no time nor inclination to respond. Enjoy your WP:LASTWORD. --Oakshade (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My last word to you will simply be that you're not responding, you're just repeating. I'm not paid for this either, but at least I've taken the time to actually read the sources, read the rules, and give a critical analysis, in the apparently naive expectation that someone would engage with it and counter my points to show how I've got it completely wrong. If you like writing articles instead of doing that, then please write one on the 2004 Lynx crash, since it seems to meet your definition of notable (as do all of the others in all likelihood). Or alternatively, you could improve this one - because despite your claims that it has been covered extensively, in depth, and over time, it is still missing essential details, such as the conclusion of the investigation. Hopefully someone will recognise just how little time you have spent on your analysis of it, or the purpose of the rules (or the fact that EVENT is the specific rule in play here), and delete the article, unless or until someone can actually prove with evidence that it does comply. Patrol forty (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whoah, I had to respond to this. I've been editing here for almost a decade and have not only spent years analyzing, working with and, in some cases, writing the rules, I've had actual practical application of them over a period spanning a decade. Many long articles are almost entirely written by me with the utmost integration to WP policies, styles and guidelines. While you've failed to recognize my contributions I know others have. You on the other had have only contributed to long winded flawed arguments that demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of our rules such as WP:EVENT in both letter and spirit of that rule. Instead of insulting highly experienced users, why not actually contribute the the improving of our articles.--Oakshade (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fact you haven't bothered to address any specific point I've made here regarding how the rules relate to this specific article and its sources, tells me that I probably do have a very good understanding. Obvious errors are easily pointed out, in any walk of life. Yet you seem to be having great difficulty constructing any kind of fact based response at all, preferring instead to just repeat what the rules say, as if after all this time I might still not have read them. As for insulting people, I'm not entirely sure how anything I've said here amounted to a failure to recognise your contributions. I'd like to reassure you I didn't take any offence from you apparently not noticing that I've been the only person to add any information to this article in the last week. I'd say that was an improvement, but since it added clarification which undermines the case for notability, I'm guessing you'd disagree. I don't doubt that you've spent many hours on Wikipedia, creating all sorts of articles. Does that prove you read the sources in this article? Does that prove you have a proper grasp of the spirit of EVENT? All I can go on is what you've said here, which is still unconvincing. I might think differently if you'd said just one thing so far relating to a specific point of fact I've raised, such as the MoD feature. It forms 1/3 of the supposed evidence of coverage after the event, but it's not independent, and is barely a line long. How many times does a supposed novice have to repeat such an obvious error in the EVENT/lasting coverage argument, before a self-proclaimed expert like yourself bothers to even answer it? People can draw their own conclusions for this failure, I've already given mine. Patrol forty (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm responding the the misuse of WP:Routine in this instance. If you read the policy it doesn't seem applicable to the type of coverage that comes from catastrophic events that get covered in the news and then later have press conferences to speak further about the event. As well, the crash sparked other events in later years such as the train named after Lewis. As I have previously stated, Wikipedia is a place that I would expect to be able find out background information about the crash that killed Lewis. The topic is encyclopedic in nature...not a tabloid event or a slow day in the media type of coverage. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ROUTINE has to apply to this type of coverage, otherwise Wikipedia would have to consider every single fatal Lynx crash notable, because every single one gets the type of coverage you're referring to (which in this case, is simply reporting on the inquest). I've already given an example of this happening for the 2004 crash. As for your expectations and claim this is an encyclopedic, I've already written extensively on why it would be wrong to believe that. But to recap:
  • Readers who want to know more on the gender angle will surely be disappointed - this article has nothing in that beyond what the RN believed was the case at the time, that she was the first female Royal Navy pilot or observer to die in service. That's it. If they do their own research, they're not going to find anything more reliable or concrete than local news sources repeating the heritage railway's claim 12 years later that she was the "first United Kingdom naval servicewoman to lose her life while on operational duty", which is somewhat different, and hardly concrete enough for inclusion here as an historical fact. It also has absolutely no background information on Lewis as far as her role as a female in the RN goes (because sources simply say she was one of the first female RN pilot/observers - they clearly don't consider it significant enough to even clarify where she came in the order, or name who was the first helicopter pilot/observer, and so this article doesn't either). All in all, it's amazing you found anything of value here, if your interest is Lewis/the gender aspect. I expect encyclopedias to restrict their coverage of such things to actual achievements (such as who was the first female RN helo pilot/observer), not mere statistical inevitabilities, such as the fact that females in dangerous occupations are going to die, sooner or later, just like there was a first male helicopter pilot to die.
  • Readers expecting to find the sort of information you'd ordinarily expect in an encyclopedic article on a historically notable aircrash are going to be disappointed, because there's nothing here except repetition of the news reporting at the time, and it's not even complete - missing out crucial details like the investigation conclusion. There's no historical overview whatsoever, despite there being quite a lot of coverage out there about crashes involving the Lynx. I expect those readers to be really annoyed that this has an entire article, yet other similar crashes get barely a sentence, if they're even mentioned in Wikipedia at all.
  • Readers expecting to find more detail on the depth angle are going to be disappointed too. While it does seem to me to be notable that this was apparently the deepest aircrash salvage recovery operation to date, the fact this is restricted to a single sentence, and is only sourced to a brief recap mention by the MoD in a feature that had nothing to do with the crash, with no other mentions apparent in any other source, either at the time or since, seems to speaks volumes as far as evidence of encyclopedic worth goes.
  • Readers believing your claim that this crash sparked "other events in later years" are going to find out the truth of that statement - there was only one event, the train naming, and once they read the sources, they will find that the only link between this crash and the train naming is the mere fact she died. They'll also discover that this was hardly an independent act either. As such, it's tangential at best - the naming was done as much to commemorate the fact she was from Dorset and liked trains and her father funded the restoration, than for the fact she died in this particular crash. Which gets just a single sentence by way of recap.
The reason for all these flaws and failures to live up to reasonable expectations of an encyclopedia's treatment of a notable aircrash (or indeed a notable salvage recovery/gender milestones/railway locomotive), is inescapable - it's the lack of any actual historical notability in the real world. That's reflected in the lack of significant independent coverage in reliable sources after the event. The proof is in the pudding. By ignoring the intent of EVENT, this article looks exactly like what it is, and what it will always be limited to - a replication of the news coverage at the time, with a bit about a train tacked onto the end, the importance/significance of which is debatable, certainly to the event being documented here anyway. Whoever is getting value from reading pages like this, has clearly not understood what an encyclopedia is for (summarisation and historical overview), or is just really really bad at using Google and can't find anything on the internet unless it's on Wikipedia. Patrol forty (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that the article is not complete is not a reason to delete it (WP:SURMOUNTABLE), nor is the fact that other crashes don't have articles (WP:OTHERCRAP). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say in SURMOUNTABLE that Wikipedia has to keep articles which cannot be finished because the details required to finish them have not been covered by reliable sources? That's the case I've been making, after doing my own research and finding nothing. If you believe this is merely an issue of cleanup, rather than clear evidence of non-notability, then the only thing you can really do is provide some proof that the missing details can eventually be sourced, so that the article will eventually be of use to someone coming here with the expectation of an encyclopedic treatment of a historically notable event (rather than just a more convenient presentation of what the news reports said at the time, and a tangential section about a train). Remember that the claim you and others have made is that this crash was given significant coverage, in depth, in detail, by reliable sources, long after the event. It simply doesn't then add up if you cannot then find with the utmost of ease, sources for the sort of the basic information that this article is still missing. I found a source for the cause of the Norfolk crash in about 10 seconds. [5]. It also took about the same time to find the cause of the 2004 crash, linked to above (and also recaped by the same MoD feature as this crash).
And while OTHERCRAP says to use caution, it quite rightly doesn't dissuade anyone from referencing outcomes in similar circumstances, and I've purposely only referred to incidents which are remarkably similar, up to the point of proving they even have exactly the same sort of coverage which is being claimed as evidence of lasting notability here. Rather than simply dismissing this as being irrelevant because it's just 'other crap', I'd expect some kind of reason as to why, if the same rules are being applied to the same incidents which got the same coverage, there should be a different outcome. There doesn't seem to me to be any point in even pretending that the reason no other articles on fatal Lynx crashes have been created is simply because nobody has bothered to start one. That doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all, given the number of crashes and length of time that has passed, and the general popularity of articles on the western militaries on Wikipedia in general.
The simple fact is, the level of detailed coverage this crash got at the time, every fatal Lynx crash gets. And the things that supposedly make it unique and historically notable, have barely been mentioned by independent sources after the event, in stark contrast to the claims that these things have received significant/in depth/detailed coverage in a way that was not routine. This is not an OTHERCRAP point, this is a proper analysis of the actual sources with reference to the rules in play, in a way that logically explains why this article shouldn't have an outcome that's any different from those crashes. Patrol forty (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to [6], "At a depth of 4,000m, it was the deepest ever recovery of a crashed aircraft and allowing the accident invesitgators to identify a potentially serious defect and fix the problem immediately throughout the rest of the Lynx helicopter fleet." The cause is given in [7] - it was due to a dislodged fuel pipe that caused a fire, and a modification was made to avoid it happening in the future. With a bit more digging, particularly looking at the overall report, I'm sure there's plenty more available information that can be added into this article. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you provided the first link - it's already in the article, and what it says (and what it is), has been discussed extensively here. As for the second link, I can only refer back to my previous statement - "I suspect you will eventually find a source for the cause, but I'm thinking you're probably going to have to look pretty hard, and will probably only find it in the actual investigation report. Which is all just more proof that, whatever this article is here for, it isn't to summarise the contents of the 'significant' and 'detailed' coverage it has got in secondary sources over the 12 years since (I'm assuming the investigation isn't just sitting somewhere on a shelf, still officially 'open')."
Regarding your claim that "information about the cause is easily obtainable." when you made this comment, I'd say that the second link is proof that it isn't. I'm not sure if you realised or not, but that isn't even the report into this crash, it's a report into the 2011 crash of XZ210 in Germany (which of course, has no article on Wikipedia) - this is clearer when you look at the home page [8] (the link is merely part 1.4.4). If the information was really easily available, you'd at the very least have been able to find the right report, no?
And it raises another issue. Your claim above that the cause was "a dislodged fuel pipe that caused a fire, and a modification was made to avoid it happening in the future" is clearly the result of your own analysis of that report. It should be clear what the risks are to Wikipedia, if it is being left to random Wikipedia editors to digest and summarise the contents of what look to be quite technical reports. So, even if this link (or the actual report of this crash) were to be used to finish the article as regards the official cause, there's the issue of whether or not the information would be trustworthy or reliable (since its the product of editors performing their own interpretations of it).
That feeds into the notability argument - if this crash was truly notable, then you wouldn't even have to be performing this kind of research. For notable crashes, professional aviation journalists/researchers would be the people digesting and summarising those reports, and Wikipedia would then be sourcing the contents of its article on the crash from whatever they come up with (news reports, or even books in the fullness of time, e.g. 'history of the Lynx'), as reliable secondary sources (GNG).
And ironically, your unearthing of the second link would appear to show exactly why Wikipedia requires sources to be the product of reliable researchers of a certain level of independence (certainly enough to remove the suspicion of bias/conflict of interest) - in the first link, we have the MoD claiming in 2010 that the investigators of this 2002 crash "identified a potentially serious defect and fixed the problem immediately throughout the rest of the Lynx helicopter fleet", and yet in the second link we have the MoD in 2013 appearing to suggest (to my non-expert eye) that the reason XZ210 crashed in 2011 was because it was not given that fix, and the reason it didn't get it was because the defect was not considered to be serious enough, being a mere issue of survivability rather than flight safety).
If the article is to be kept, I'd certainly like to know how it's proposed to deal with this apparent contradiction, if as I suspect, it's not been cleared up (or even noticed) by any other source likely to be found (even though it's claimed they're easy to find), certainly not one that would be considered secondary or independent. I hope everyone here would agree that SURMOUNTABLE does not cover the prospect of only being able to finish an article once individual Wikipedia editors have decided which of two non-independent government sources offer the true version of events. Just like I wouldn't expect them to decide which newspaper is correct about the scope of the gender milestone either (first pilot/observer, stated simply as an on the day belief by the RN, or simply the first female servicewoman, stated as fact much later, but by a heritage railway). Patrol forty (talk)
Having learned even more about the Lynx in the course of updating its article with details of a few more crashes which appear to have had both much more notable causes/effects than this one, as reflected in both the coverage at the time, as well as truly in depth, independent and significant coverage long after the event (example), I can say now with a high degree of confidence that the idea that finding any more in depth information about this particular crash, or indeed anything that comes close to this sort of coverage, is frankly quite preposterous. I am quite certain now that what is here, is probably all there is, and if anything more is to be added, it's not going to be easy to find, and it's probably going to come from Wikipedia editors resorting to poring over unreliable/non-independent sources, or indeed performing their own analysis/deduction from the original documentation.
In other words, it's going to cease being an encyclopedia article which adequately reflects the breadth/depth of lasting secondary coverage (which it arguably never has been yet, as the coverage isn't there beyond the briefest of recaps), and will instead just become another piece of the aviation blogroll, both adding to and repeating the various titbits of information about every aircrash there's ever been in the history of the world, which float about the internet long after the events, but which never make it to reliable, independent sources beyond the initial news coverage, largely because they are not considered historically notable.
At best, this article is doomed to be simply tangentially useful background reading on why Lt Lewis' father decided to fund the restoration of a train on a private railway in Dorset in his daughters memory, because she liked trains and was from Dorset. Of course there's absolutely nothing wrong with him having done that, it's just not exactly Brittanica, is it? They wouldn't devote an entire article to such an event, and neither I would have thought, would Wikipedia.
And it also appears the gender aspect is not nearly as significant as some have claimed (as reflected by the lack of coverage and ongoing ambiguity over which precise milestone this was). Based on what I've found tonight, MilborneOne seems to have correctly identified the issue above - it's simply not compatible with EVENT for Wikipedia to be writing an article for every crash which is in some way a 'first' in any particular branch/type/role combination in the various roles females now have in the military.
There comes a point when the press are simply hair-splitting for no good reason (or at least no reason that isn't simply news driven) - for example it's considered newsworthy that there was a 22 year gap between 1994 and 2006 when no female servicewomen died on operations in any branch (the 2006 death ironically being in a Lynx crash [9]), yet as this incident shows, during that same period, it's also newsworthy that single branches of the services (Navy) suffered their first ever death in service. It's hard to claim this forms a coherent encyclopedic topic you would "expect to see on Wikipedia", if these things aren't being cross-tracked by the very sources which you'd have to use to create the Wikipedia articles (a list?) for that. I will say again, it's still not even clear which gender milestone Lewis even represented by dying in this accident, and the source of the confusion can only be down to the lack of reliable independent ongoing coverage, and hence from an encyclopedic/historical standpoint, the lack of notability of it.
Indeed, Wikipedia can't seem to take a coherent approach to this at all - I've only just found out the woman who died in 2006, Sarah-Jayne Mulvihill, actually has an article here, presumably for being notable as the first female death in Iraq. Yet you will find the crash which caused her death gets a single sentence mention in the biography. Is that representative of the treatment it gets in sources? Clearly not. Compare and contrast with this situation, the crash causing the death gets an entire article, yet the person gets nothing (not even a brief biography as a section within it). Is that representative of the sources? Of course not. In the news coverage at the time, she at least got the briefest of biographical treatments. This article has more detail on the crash, and less detail on her, than any of the news sources, and of all three of the sources which are the claimed evidence of lasting notability. Which is of course, in part built on the gender milestone. Patrol forty (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This analysis makes no sense. If the first sentence was true, the second would be entirely redundant - by definition, there's absolutely no need to tag/merge/redirect/incubate/transwiki/archive an article whose primary topic satisfies EVENT (which appears to be what the first sentences was trying to articulate). And as I've already said, just because this particular crash does seemingly fail EVENT, doesn't mean that details of it can't be included in other related articles - there are indeed (potentially) some historically notable facts here worthy of retaining. Although given the problems with the quality of their sourcing that have already been identified above (and seemingly ignored by this person's analysis), rather than supporting their retention, PRESERVE seems to me to call for their complete removal under VERIFY/ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Patrol forty (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hardly. I think people might notice it even more if I repeat the point you chose to ignore - it makes absolutely no sense at all to invoke any of the listed alternatives to deletion, if the first sentence of your vote was even remotely true (because if it were true, EVENT would be met, allowing the crash to have its own article on Wikipedia). Patrol forty (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundancy provides layers of resilience which helps prevent catastrophic failure. For this reason, helicopters which fly over water or cities are required to have two engines. The helicopter in this case was of this kind and it's interesting that it suffered a double engine failure. My !vote stands. Andrew (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, for one, I don't see what this has to do with you explaining how you can invoke GNG and ATD at the same time. Second, if this is now the reason you want to keep it, it appears to be an obvious case of WP:INTERESTING. What's more interesting is what happens when considering these two reasons together - if it was notable for the failure of the redundancy to ensure resilience, the sources would have covered it that way. But they don't. Not even close. They give the double-failure aspect as much attention as any of the other basic facts, without even bothering to mention redundancy/resilience. The article could say more on it if some random Wikipedia editor decides to play aviation journalist and analyse the report themselves, but that would just reinforce the fact it doesn't meet EVENT (because anyone can do that for any crash regardless of notability, including all the less well covered double-failure Lynx losses like XZ210 mentioned above). Patrol forty (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I find Patrol forty's arguments well set out, and even eloquent. I'm not sure what my opinion is at the moment. I am not certain that the naming of a locomotive this past summer is a sign of enduring notability. I note that it's a preserved loco, so the hurdle to pass to name may be less than in say an operational mainline train. The attendance of the Fleet Air Arm is not that surprising given the link, but also Yeovilton is only "down the road" (I saw a Lynx fly over Corfe Castle when I was down there in August). It comes across as a local story rather than a national one. I am even less sure of the MoD one from 2010, in that the Richmond helicopter is but a passing mention. I'm tending towards "Delete" but I shall ponder more.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. At least someone is reading them I guess..... Patrol forty (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This seems like a very notable incident to me, as would any similar helicopter crash. In response to some of the comments above:
    • Notability: the incident has been covered by a number of reliable sources (including consecutive articles by the BBC, and also other mainstream coverage), which gives it sufficient notability from my perspective (there's more than enough information available in reliable sources to write this article). That the incident did lead to a recommended modification of the fleet, even if it wasn't adopted, seems very notable to me. Also, the fact that Harry has started the article over a decade since the incident in itself indicates that this has long-term notability (how would he have heard about the incident so long after it happened if it wasn't an important event?). In this case, I think that the event notability guidelines need to be improved rather than being used as a reason for deletion.
    • Comparison with other events: I think this demonstrates a lack of coverage of other such events here rather than a notability issue for this event. Many of the incidents that have been pointed to above really should have a Wikipedia article, and I'd like to see them created in the near future.
    • Availability of information for the article: Personally, I think there's more than enough information available to write an article on this subject. I would go beyond that to say that I think this could be a Good Article with a bit more work (I hope that Harry will continue to work on this article despite this debate; I'm also willing to spend some time working on the article if it is kept).
    • Summarising referenced material: It's been commented above that facts from the incident reports shouldn't be included in the article unless reported elsewhere. I think that's wrong. If it's factual information, then I think it's absolutely fine for such facts to be included in the article; it's only consequential opinions and interpretations that need to be attributed to secondary sources, not the facts. With regards my brief summary of the accident report above: there's a reason why I posted that here, rather than in the article, and that's because it would need much more careful wording in the article in order to accurately follow the report's meaning.
Although I disagree with Patrol forty, I would like to thank them for their extensive comments here, and I would very much encourage them to get more involved in creating new Wikipedia content, as they clearly have a lot of very useful experience and insights.
In general, I am concern that this is turning into a very long deletion debate. I think it would have been better if the non-admin closure had decided the matter, and we could focus on developing the mainspace content instead. I won't close this discussion myself, as I'm involved in the discussion, but I would encourage another admin to close it sooner rather than later. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/HMS_Richmond_helicopter_crash&oldid=1223550143"